U.S. Army M4 Carbine & 5.56mm Cartridge Replacement Status

[10x25mm]

The U.S. Army is moving ahead with the replacement of the M4 Carbine and its 5.56mm cartridges with the Next-Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) program in some, yet to be finalized, 6.8mm caliber cartridge. Nick Adde posted a long form article on the status of this program in the January 2019 issue of National Defense, the house organ of the National Defense Industrial Association:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...-rifle-program

Adde also posted another article specifically on the 6.8mm caliber cartridge development which is behind a paywall. Here is an OCRed scan of his 6.8mm cartridge article from my dead tree edition of January's National Defense:

New 6.8mm Caliber Ammo a Game-Changer For Ground Combat Troops
By Nick Adde

Army leadership is committed to moving toward the adoption of 6.8 caliber ammunition for the Next-Generation Squad Weapon. However, its development hinges upon addressing two key concerns.

The round must be suitable For close- and medium-range conflicts, such as house-to-house urban engagements. Likewise, it must function properly in long-range environments, such as those found in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Additionally, the larger ammunition should not add to the weight — and ideally, would lessen the burden soldiers now currently carry. Of equal importance, it must be lethal.

The Army team responsible for the project believes that while it will take some time to come to fruition, they are on the right track.

“We're looking at it holistically. We want our soldiers to never go into a fair fight, and always have an overmatch with their adversaries,” said Col. Travis Thompson, chief of staff for the soldier lethality cross-Functional team at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Under the holistic approach, the three components - ammunition, the weapon and fire control - all must function together, in any and all combat situations, Thompson said.

The ammunition and weapon must perform within 200 meters - where history shows most combat confrontations take place - and at distances, where present-day enemies are increasingly seeking to engage U.S. and allied soldiers, he said.

The decision to settle upon a 6.8 caliber round resulted from extensive testing and research by Army laboratories, staffed by experts who closely examined factors such as threats, target sets, weight, performance and controllability, Thompson said.

The research entailed looking at a multitude of combinations of barrel and weapon lengths, weights and calibers of both commercial and military systems.

“A lot of effort was done by our labs in looking at what's the right caliber for the next-generation weapon," Thompson said. “The decision was not taken lightly."

Mark Cancian, a senior international security advisor with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a retired Marine Corps officer, said the Army "is trying to fix a tension that has existed in small arms for a century."

Cancian noted the institutional desire on the Army's part to improve the lethality of small arms, with the focus on ammunition. When the service published a semi-formal request for ideas on FedBiz-Opps last October, it specifically mentioned the intent to move to the higher caliber from the current 5.56 NATO round now in use with the M4 carbine and M249 squad automatic weapon.

In the announcement, contractors were told to submit their ideas under an other transaction agreements authority, which is used specifically to solicit prototype ideas. The service would then review the proposals after 27 months, and then award a follow-on production contract.

The plan to adopt the higher caliber represents a “compromise” on the Army's part, Cancian said, but not one without inherent challenges.

"It's very expensive and very hard to change calibers," he said “Improving the ammunition is by far an easier way to improve lethality."

The “tension” exists between proponents of ammunition suitable for short-range and longer-range fights. This, he said, is what the lethality team is coming to terms with today as it seeks to develop the new round and its corresponding weapon. [See story on page 26.[at the hyperlink, above])

"The marksmen in the services would like to optimize long-range precision fire, and they point to engagements where that is important. These people say that in Afghanistan, particularly, there are opportunities to take long-range shots," Cancian said.

Even though the history of infantry conflict shows that most engagements happen at close ranges, he said, shooters who want to hit a target at ranges of 500 meters or greater would need larger rounds with heavy bullets.

“But if you're going to be fighting close in - at 100 meters or under 50 meters - you want something that can fire rapidly and then quickly," Cancian said. “The 5.56 is very good for that."

The compromise to which Cancian refers would entail development of a bullet that would fit in a relatively small weapon like the 5.56 does, but also could reach out to long ranges and still hit targets.

“That is what the Army is trying to do," Cancian said. He believes the service is taking the right approach.

“If you don’t do anything, you‘re more optimized for close-in. If you adopt a heavier caliber, you have to replace everything in the inventory. That gets very expensive," he noted.

Moreover, once the U,S military makes such a change, allies and partner nations would feel compelled to follow suit, he said.

“It's hugely problematic, and it’s not clear that you're going to improve your performance close-in. You might get better at the long shot, but worse at the shots that are more common," Cancian said.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, a strong proponent of the round and new rifle, believes the weapon system will prove to exceed any military rifle in existence, and penetrate any body armor in use now and in the next 25 years.

"This weapon has an accurate range far in excess of any known existing military rifle today," Milley said during a speech at the Association of the United States Army's annual meeting in October in Washington, DC.

The lethality branch team also is well aware of the issue of compatibility with the NATO round.

“We're not ignoring it," said Daryl Easlick, the branch's small arms deputy. “First of all, the U.S. Army is going to have 5.56 and 7.62 weapons systems for the foreseeable future."

Easlick and his team are in continuous contact with NATO allies. “They know what we're looking for and why we [want] different calibers. They understand it‘s threat-based, and that we're trying to improve our capabilities," Easlick said.

Also, NATO countries do not have the research-and-development capabilities inherent in the US. military, he noted.

“They sit back and watch what we do. Once we get the [research and development], out of the way they will .... see about piggy-backing," Easlick said.

Likewise, the team is aware of the concerns about efficacy at divergent distances. "Finding that balance in an acceptable way is the entire intent of the program," Easlick said. "An infantryman's engagement range is not fixed. Nor is it very predictable. He has to be proficient in that entire engagement band that he is subjected to."

Easlick noted that commercial, off-the-shelf products exist that can provide long-range fires. Such ammunition, he said, may not necessarily be suitable for other scenarios. These products tend to be specific in what they are designed to do, he said. That specificity may prove of little use under the stress and duration of combat.

Thompson said that comparisons of military-grade 6.8 and 5.56 ammunition with civilian ammunition of the same ilk are irrelevant. Commercial manufacturers make good products for consumers, but “they're not in the business of making bullets that kill our enemies," he said.

Adaptation of the new round and weapon will follow guidelines set forth by the Close Combat Lethality Task Force, the group of experts Defense Secretary James Mattis established last March to respond to what he sees as an erosion of close-combat capability as it relates to threats U.S. forces now face.

Improvement in training and equipment is one key element among many, Mattis believes, that is necessary to counter threats from adversaries that are becoming more capable at a pace the United States may not be able to match unless changes are made.

Mattis specifically ordered the task force to “identify or develop options for investment that include more lethal and discriminating individual weapons systems, while recognizing the imperative to lighten load for infantry squads."

Individual soldiers are carrying too much weight, Mattis' directive stated. The result is a negative impact on an infantry squad's ability to move, survive and destroy the enemy.

"This is all about the ballistics of a heavier bullet, moving at a high velocity," Easlick said. "We did look at multiple calibers, and determined that we [wanted] something somewhere between the 5.56 and the 7.62. That landed us in the realm of 6.5 to 6.8."

Based on that understanding, the team wants to emerge from the project with the right capability, and something that soldiers accept and use, and are able to do what they can do today with their automatic rifles, Easlick said.

With testing likely to take place at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, and other sites, Easlick and his team want to see how prototype weapons and ammunition fare as soldiers carry and use it on load effect assessment program courses, which are designed to assess the effects equipment and clothing have on performance.

“It's a measure to see if soldiers can do the same tasks in the same amount of time, or maybe a little less, based on what their load is," Easlick said.

The lethality branch performs such tests Frequently, to conduct proof-of-concept assessments and ensure they are moving projects in the right direction.

The 6.8 caliber round will undergo such tests, Easlielt said, but the Army is choosing to keep the testing schedule close to the vest.

All of this is evolving, Thompson said, with a mindful effort to minimize costs and maximize value for the taxpayer. Hence, the initial focus is to deliver the new ammunition and weapon to the 100,000 soldiers who do 90 percent of the fighting.

"We need to have an overmatch for the soldiers who look into the eyes of the enemy," Thompson said. "The 6.8, and the Next-Generation Squad Weapon, will do just that."

The U.S. Army is really serious about adopting a new shoulder arm this time around. The top brass are demonstrating real commitment to the program. The belt fed 6.8mm plastic cartridge Textron squad automatic seems fairly well developed and meets the program goals, but doesn't translate into a magazine fed carbine well. Some of the other contenders use different cartridges, so the Textron squad automatic may not be the weapon adopted.

Update:

Steve Forbes' RealClearDefense got NDIA to pull Nick Adde's 6.8mm cartridge story out from behind the National Defense paywall overnight:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...-ground-troops

[JohnS624]

Or, they could standardize on a 75-77gr OTM (or say the hell with the Hague Accords), put freefloat rails and a better trigger on all M4's, add a 1-6x scope and spend more time on the rifle range. Maybe even add 2 inches to barrel length. The M4 is much more accurate than an AK, so they aren't really outranging us, just using area fire to pin us down. If you teach people to hit at extended ranges, we take control back.

[BMT85]

There’s been a couple articles on this. Some of the requirements they want seem a bit much to me, though. Running higher pressures than 5.56, higher velocities, armor penetration at a certain yardage (can’t remember what), and now can’t weigh more then current ammo. Plus they have been wanting to change over to poly cases and lead free ammo. I see this being ridiculously expensive (even for the government), and I’m wondering how long the barrels will last.

[castrotikon]

Or the Army could just get serious and outfit everyone with the Smartguns from Aliens.

[DrScaryGuy]

Or the Army could just get serious and outfit everyone with the Smartguns from Aliens.

mute before clicking

mute before clicking

[10x25mm]

National Defense reports that ACE has requested bids to construct an entirely new building at the Lake City Ammunition Plant to produce ammunition for the new 6.8mm NGW weapons:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...w-6-8-mm-round

Army Ammo Plant Readies for New 6.8 mm Round
Connie Lee - 4/4/2019

The Army’s plan to adopt a 6.8 mm round includes building a new manufacturing facility at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Missouri.

Whitney Watson, senior manager of communications of Northrop Grumman’s small caliber systems division, said his company operates the Lake City plant, which is government-owned and contractor-operated, for the Army. The plant produces about 90 percent of the Defense Department’s small caliber ammunition, such as 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm bullets, he said.

“We produce about one and a half billion rounds a year” for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, as well as the FBI, CIA and Drug Enforcement Agency, he added.

The Army is pursuing a 6.8 mm round for its next-generation squad weapon, which will be designed to work in close-, medium- and long-range battles. The service examined multiple calibers and considered different weapon lengths for the new firearm.

“The bottom line is it’s about overmatch,” Watson said. “Our adversaries are building better body armor, and so the Army wanted something — an intermediate round — between that 5.56 mm and the 7.62 mm” it currently uses.

The new ammunition will be produced at Lake City after the Army finalizes the weapon, develops the new round and builds a new production facility, he said.

The Army Corps of Engineers has been soliciting for an architect and engineering firm, and design task orders are slated to be awarded by the end of the summer. Following the awards, the service will begin determining the size and scope of the new facility, he noted.

The new building will be the first new manufacturing facility Lake City has constructed in 50 years, Watson added.

“We’ve been around since 1940 — [that] is when ground was broken — and the first rounds came off the line nine months later, Sept. 12th, 1941,” he said. “There’s definitely a storied history here at Lake City.”

Construction of the building is expected to begin in the next two to three years, and production of the new round will start in about three or four years, he noted.

[Johnny Reb]

“Our adversaries are building better body armor”..... Really? Which adversaries? The ones who live in caves in Afghanistan? The “crack” troops of North Korea or Syria? Didn’t we just develop the steel tip penetrator round 855A1 that’s supposed to defeat armor and barriers better? Sounds to me like “we the people” are in for a good fleecing in the future and some future congressman and their handlers are gonna be getting an extra large income infusion. Disgusting.

[Coctailer]

I have a magazine from 1968 that has an article about how they are going to replace the M-16 with something else LOL

They’ve literally been having this discussion since before I was alive

[C Co. 3/75]

“Our adversaries are building better body armor”..... Didn’t we just develop the steel tip penetrator round 855A1 that’s supposed to defeat armor and barriers better?

And in the two YouTube tests I've seen against AR500 III+ with a Build Up Coat of Paxon (Line-X) and Russian Mfg Lvl IV Ceramic - it doesn't even defeat those, LOL. I say good, because I'm more worried about those rounds being used stateside.

[DP425]

And in the two YouTube tests I've seen against AR500 III+ with a Build Up Coat of Paxon (Line-X) and Russian Mfg Lvl IV Ceramic - it doesn't even defeat those, LOL. I say good, because I'm more worried about those rounds being used stateside.

Nor should it- M855A1 isn't AP